>I've worked with guys who have never written a single test yet ship code that does the job, meets performance specs, and runs in production environments with no issues.
I'm curious to unpack this a bit. I'm curious what other tools people use other than testing programatic testing; programatic testing seems to be the most efficient, especially for a programmer. I'm also maybe a bit stuck on the binary nature of your statement. You know developers who've never let a bug or performance issue enter production(with or without testing)?
But what is your process for determining code is correct, and is it really faster and more reliably than writing tests? Sheer force of will? Running it through your brain a few times? Getting peer review? I often find tests that all things being equal tests are just the fastest way to review my own work, even if I hate writing them sometimes.
One of your examples at the bottom of the page, is the "IsPalindrome". I guess the assumption is I would click on the "see Reference" as it doesn't provide any context for the code. This context of a real person explaining it is one of the benefits of sites like Stack Overflow, so I would think about this element of UX.
Also, I noticed in your palindrome reference example, it didn't choose the accepted answer from Stack Overflow. How did it choose the example? Also, the 2nd 2 reference panes, I can't tell what value they are adding. They seem like a list of random outputs of the ispalindrome script.
I'm kind of excited about this because I hope it increases demand for induction stoves so that they fix useability issues like this, and make more. Right now you're lucky to go to Best Buy or Home Depot and find a single induction stove.
I think _because_ of their intimate knowledge of the craft, Chef's are going to give you a wider variety of answers with less certainty than anyone else.
Yeah, I imagine a challenge would be making a second really fun game in a different genre from the first. The different 'games' would probably have to be relatively lightweight and lean into the fact that it's the interaction that is the fun part. Having a space MMO developer somehow land a super popular AAA FPS would be near impossible. I like how the battlefield games let you fly airplanes, but then it's not really a full blow flight simulator.
Isn't there a pretty broad swath of what people find fun? I mean isn't Eve Online called a "spreadsheet simulator" (Long before the recent Microsoft Excel Integration)
I had a similar idea, for siege combat. You play the general/king of the castle, and it's all first person. The only way to interact with the battlefield is by talking directly to the people who will do the work, so you can either send pages, or talk to your generals, if there in the throne room or you can otherwise get to them. Maybe there are telescopes you can use to see beyond your sight lines.
I'm surprised nothing like this exists, I've thought about making something like this, but I think one challenge is it's really hard to bootstrap an economy without some other gameplay element other than trading. Otherwise, How do you determine the value of items?
In one of the versions of this game I thought it would be interesting to have a cutthroat stock market involved. I'm not sure how the mechanics would have to work but you could use the stock market mechanics to lift and destroy other companies.
I think this could be a killer app for business team building. I've done "virtual escape rooms" but it always feels weird not being able to interact with the environment yourself. I'm glad those businesses were able to do something to stay in business but it was a weird fit.
I want a game somewhere halfway between an MMORPG and a MOBA. Like an MMO in a bottle, or a Massive MOBA. A good example of this may be Alterac Valley from World of Warcraft but on a bigger scale.
Two sides, each side has 100 to 500 people, and the map is the size of 10 WOW zones. The game lasts some limited amount of time, with some forcing function similar to the shrinking map in Fortnight.
There are all the different kind of activities you may perform in an MMO; Dungeons, mobs, quests, crafting; You start as level one and you could play the entire thing PVE solving quests or you can be PVP or somewhere in between as like a rogue that is sabotaging the other side. But everything you do helps your side or hurts the other side. Every quest you do may gain resources for your side or help your army grow bigger, or help arm your team. (You could go find special weapons, or just gain resources to help all people on your team get progressively bigger weapons).
Expanding on your idea, I thought it would be interesting to have an MMORPG with multiple completely different clients. The easiest example might be in a future/sci-fi game, you have a normal game client for people moving around the game, and a Stock market client for people who want to play the stock market in the game. You could have a business simulation client as well maybe for shop keepers. Maybe a news website to try and bridge the gap between them all, but you could play one game (the stock market game) while never logging into the First Person "MMO" client but you're completely integrated. If you could think of a number of these different clients, I think it would be interesting.
OP Doesn't need to go to rehab, but OP described a problem (expense is growing) and one solution would be to think about the collection in a different way. I think in this case, it is a 'problem' in a practical sense, not a moral one. That being said if OP just wants to vent and doesn't want a solution then there's that too.
I'm curious to unpack this a bit. I'm curious what other tools people use other than testing programatic testing; programatic testing seems to be the most efficient, especially for a programmer. I'm also maybe a bit stuck on the binary nature of your statement. You know developers who've never let a bug or performance issue enter production(with or without testing)?